|
The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens | 
 enlarge | Author: Vox Day
Publisher: Benbella Books
Category: Book
List Price: $24.95
Buy New: $16.47
You Save: $8.48 (34%)
New (13) Used (3) from $15.55
Rating:  51 reviews
Sales Rank: 55104
Media: Hardcover
Pages: 320
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.1 x 1.1
ISBN: 1933771364
Dewey Decimal Number: 211.8
EAN: 9781933771366
ASIN: 1933771364
Publication Date: February 1, 2008
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
A perceptive examination of modern day atheism, this book challenges the argument that religion and reason are fundamentally at odds—a contention made by three prominent scholars on atheism: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. While other religious apologetics have challenged atheism on theological or biblical grounds, this book fights fire with fire, disproving the scholars' logic through modern, secular reason. Rigorously documented and supported by hard factual data, this careful analysis is critical reading for any religious person seeking to rebut the assertions of new atheists and essential information for any open-minded atheist who wants his beliefs to stand on firm ground.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 46 more reviews...
 The Childish Theist January 8, 2009
Stanislav Sevcik (Knoxville, USA)
I found a lot of positive reviews of this book on the net so I wondered how well it tackles the 'new atheist' preachings. Needless to say, I was disappointed and didn't even finish reading it (yeah, you can smash me for it in the comments). If this is the best refutation to Dawkins/Hutchins/etc a theist can offer, then they've won. The first chapter (and a half of all next chapters) is one big ad hominem. At one point Day pictures the atheist as 'having receding hair lines, bad breath and fading jeans'. Yes, Dawkins resorts to ad hominems as well, but at least they are funny and don't go beyond a couple of paragraphs. Day just seems to want to show us just how childish he can become.
When finally throws in some arguments in between all the name calling I can only wonder why the reviewers fail to see the evident fallacies in them. Let me just show you two examples of two Day's attempts on logic:
In the first chapter he wonders about the appearent discrepancy between number of people identifying themselves as 'atheist' in the polls and a larger number of people labeling themselves as 'no religion'. Day proceeds to name three explanations for this phenomenon:
(1) there is a substantive difference between being an atheist and not being religious, (2) many people without religion still cling to a belief in God, or (3) there are a large number of individualswho simply dont know what to call themselves
There's a number of things wrong with these explanations. For one, there is in fact a substantive difference between not being religious and being atheist. While all atheist are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheist - those are the group of people identified in the second explanation - those who believe in some kind of god but are not part of any existing religion (this would include Albert Einstein and Thomas Jefferson for instance). Moreso, Day forgets to include other options like people not believing in any god being afraid to identify themselves as atheist because this term is used in a derogatory manner in their society (and in books like Day's). As much as this set of explanation is flawed (first two explanations being the same) what follows - Day's way of choosing which one of them is the correct one - is outright ridiculous:
"Given the large number of American voters, 26 percent in the 2004
election,8 who cannot figure out if they are Democrats or Republicans
even after making a selection between the two parties, Occams
Razor suggests that the third explanation is the one most likely to be
correct."
It left me breathless. While he fails to see that all of the explanations can be correct (with different people falling into different cathegories) he chooses Occam's Razor (supported by a non-sequitur) as his decision tool? Wow, I guess he would choose Newton's theory of gravity over Einstein's gravitation theory just because it's more simple - good thinking, Mr Day, don't overexert your brains.
The second example of author's anti-logical thinking is even more evident. In the second chapter he tries to work out a crippled version of Popper's definition of science (overlooking a lot of other Popper's criteria along the way):
"Poppers primary criterion for distinguishing between science and not-science is the concept of falsifiability. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it must be theoretically possible to make an observation that would disprove the subject."
Then he proceeds to propose a science of 'god linguistics':
"I base this premise on the classic example of a falsifiable proposition, the statement that all swans are white. The fact that one could prove this proposition to be wrong by observing a black swan makes it falsifiable and therefore a proper scientific matter. ... the proposition all gods speak Aramaic is equally falsifiable, given that the theoretical observation of a monolingual Greek-speaking god would suffice to falsify the proposition."
So what's wrong with that argument? Well, Mr. Day, how do you propose we observe gods speak? Even theoretically. No answer? Well, then your "god linguistics" is not a scientific theory while the swans theory is, because there is a way to observe them. There are in fact many theories produced by the scientific society that are not, in popper's sense, scientific, because they cannot be proven/disproven. These include the Many Worlds Interpretation and the String Theory.
The rest of the book does not get any better. The problem with The Irrational Atheist is that the author does not understand science, does not understand atheism and does not understand logic either. All we are left with are childish ad hominems praised by the religious community. Makes me wonder...
 David slays Goliath November 26, 2008
D. M. Ohara (Cleveland, UK)
9 out of 11 found this review helpful
[reposted with modifications - from Amazon.co.uk]
Vox Day is the blogonym of Theodore Beale, a successful rock musician, sci-fi novelist, computer games designer, internet entrepreneur, social commentator and syndicated columnist. This is his first non-fiction book.
[Those who moan about the Pseudonym should remember that 'Mark Twain', 'George Eliot' and 'Mark Pattison' were pseudonyms too! And there is a very distinguised British writer who publishes crime novels and serious biographies under different names, so why pick on Beale/Day?]
Day is also a multi-linguist, extremely well read in world history, a very sharp thinker and formidable in unpicking fashionable nonsense, be it political, philosophical or pseudo-scientific.
He describes himself as a Libertarian and an Undenominational Evangelical Christian, who has left the `frozen tundra' of his native Minnesota for the balmier climes of the Mediterranean. It was entirely appropriate that he should use the name by which he has become so well-known from his award-winning Blog, Vox Popoli, in authoring this amazing, erudite, logical and no-holds-barred criticism of the `Unholy Trinity' of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. In passing, his guns are also sometimes turned on Daniel Dennett, for whom- unlike the other three - he has some respect. And there is also a chapter on the French Post-Modernist `Philosopher' and Prophet of Hedonism, Michael Onfray, who really deserves no respect whatever.
One thing which makes this work both refreshing and surprising is that here is someone without scientific or academic credentials who nevertheless manages to demolish the New Atheists on their own turf. It is like watching little David with his sling and pebbles face up to Goliath, the Champion of the Philistines, and bring him down with a well-aimed blow. Day succeeds where so many others, ostensibly better qualified, have failed. "This is the Lord's doing and it is marvellous in our eyes."
After a very thorough exposure of the lies, ignorance, illogicality and bad faith of the New Atheists, Vox Day has a paragraph [page 265] which I simply must quote in full:
"Predicated on an unreliable human attribute that may not even exist, rejecting the foundation of Man's most successful civilization, trusting a notoriously quixotic institution for a miracle as a means of replacing that foundation and refusing to learn from its past disasters, atheism is not so much a basis for an irrational philosophy as for an insane one. Attempting to build a society on reason is like waging a war on terror; the effort is doomed to failure because it's a category error. There is no evidence, scientific or historical, that any human society can survive its establishment on an atheist foundation, let alone thrive, and a fair amount of evidence to the contrary."
Richard Dawkins sometime ago urged those who have rejected religion to sign-up as `Brights'. A number of those in thrall to `scientism' have done just that in an orgy of self-congratulatory hubris. Vox Day shows them up as really rather dim - and, of far more importance, potentially sinister and dangerous. PZ Myers is incandescent with rage about this book. The tenured professor of biology fits the `Bright' profile so perfectly that Dawkins made it known he wanted him to succeed to the Charles Simonyi Chair at Oxford, soon to become vacant on the age-related retirement of Dawkins himself. You should see what Myers has to say about Vox Day on his Blog - it is venomous, barely coherent personal invective with no argument that is not an ad hominem. But as Day has responded on his own Blog:
"For all that he comes off as an egregious buffoon most of the time, PZ Myers is strategically correct to stick to the petty name-calling that is the entirety of his method of argument relating to anything outside of his narrow field of science; attempting more would banish the illusion of his intellectual expertise and reveal the paucity of both his knowledge and his intelligence."
If anyone deserves the epithet `Bright', in its original meaning, it is the author of this marvellous book.
News Update: 28 Oct 08
"Professor Marcus du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, has been appointed to the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science."
We can perhaps be grateful that the crass Host-desecrater, PZ Myers, was in the event nowhere in the running.
From another person who actually read the book... October 1, 2008
Wes Trune (VA,USA)
8 out of 12 found this review helpful
I found the book as a very good read for those bogged down with arguments from many New Atheists as well as Evangelical Atheists. I recommend that each reader skip to chapter 4 to get straight to the meat of the book. From chapter 4 and on, you have a really good read that's WELL DOCUMENTED AND SUPPORTED. It helped me out a lot.
On a side note, if you see a lot of bad reviews,they're probably by the same bunch of people who don't want you to read it. Don't be surprised that people will be quick to bash the book without even reading it. Once I read it, I couldn't believe some of the reviews on here and noticed that something was up. The refutations in this book are really good and this book uncovers a lot of untruths spread about religion.
 Humorous, but otherwise lacking August 9, 2008
Driftless B (Wisconsin, USA)
3 out of 10 found this review helpful
Like a great many books, blogs, and articles created by with the sole purpose of trashing atheism Beale has an obvious axe to grind. While humorous at times this books is filled with so many logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks I can't in good conscience recommend it, to anyone.
If religious apologists want to combat "militant" atheists by "fighting fire with fire" they're going to have to learn to do better then this.
From someone who read the book July 21, 2008
A. Kurtz
16 out of 22 found this review helpful
I actually read the book; I wish people who review books on Amazon would do the same. Vox Day gives multiple reasons why dogmatic views are held by the new atheists, and thus makes many of their assertions irrational. This isn't so much of a review but more of a thanks to Vox for the time he put into making this book. Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion" goes nice with this piece of work.
|
|
Welcome to Bookstore Manor Online Bookstore and Booksellers!!Bookstore Manor Bookshop has the largest selection of online book titles online anywhere.Browse, Shop and Buy, bestseller, fiction, non-fiction, travel books, reference, everything you would expect and MILLIONS of titles all from the comfort of your home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manor Stores, LLC Shopping Network
|
|
Baby Manor Online Baby Store |
baby shower gift, baby gift basket, maternity pillow, baby shower favor, baby shower party favor, baby shower decoration, baby shower invitation, baby phat clothing, toy and baby, baby item, newborn baby product, baby name book, child bedding |
|
Beauty Supply Store |
Beauty supply store, health and beauty product, bath beauty, beauty product, beauty personal, mac cosmetic, cosmetic retailer, man jewelry |
|
Manor Stores, LLC Shopping Network
|
|
|
|
| |
